From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 15 16:10:40 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F6381E7; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:10:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from be-well.ilk.org (be-well.ilk.org [23.30.133.173]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBDFDC3; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:10:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lowell-desk.lan (lowell-desk.lan [172.30.250.41]) by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F99D33C28; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:10:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by lowell-desk.lan (Postfix, from userid 1147) id 015DD39814; Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:10:26 -0500 (EST) From: Lowell Gilbert To: Gary Aitken Subject: Re: bash fdesc requirement? References: <548E72FA.4000506@dreamchaser.org> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 11:10:26 -0500 In-Reply-To: <548E72FA.4000506@dreamchaser.org> (Gary Aitken's message of "Sun, 14 Dec 2014 22:34:50 -0700") Message-ID: <44ppbkevwt.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 16:10:40 -0000 Gary Aitken writes: > Building up a 9.3-release system. > After doing a pkg upgrade I see this message: > > Message for bash-4.3.30_1: > ====================================================================== > bash requires fdescfs(5) mounted on /dev/fd > If you have not done it yet, please do the following: > mount -t fdescfs fdesc /dev/fd > To make it permanent, you need the following lines in /etc/fstab: > fdesc /dev/fd fdescfs rw 0 0 > > Yet it seems to run just fine without it. (simple test, start bash and > exit...) > > Can someone explain what's going on, and why one would or would not > add the indicated line to /etc/fstab? It's for Process Substitution (described briefly in the manual). I don't know why the maintainer noted it as "required" -- in fact, I can't think of any functionality it enables that can't also be done with named pipes. But the maintainer added the note fairly recently, about the same time that the dependency on procfs was removed, so I'm probably missing something.